HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/8/2019 Item 1, Cross
Purrington, Teresa
From:Brett Cross <brettcross@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 8, 2019 4:52 PM
To:Advisory Bodies; Richard Schmidt
Subject:Re: Planning Commission Montalban Project
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Let's have an honest discussion here. The ignoring of the obvious isn't a good excuse for approving these projects with
bedroom calculations that you know are incorrect. Now, you may want to say, "well they could just ask for a parking
reduction do to the affordable units regardless so it really doesn't matter if the bedroom calculations are far from
correct". It does matter because a honest evaluation of a project matters in and of itself. That certainly changes the traffic
calculations and water usage figures.
Secondly, if you're not aware and you should be aware that the "offering" by the developer of studio units as a proper
fulfillment of the City's affordable housing requirement completely ignores the City's regulations regarding that the
affordable units should be nearly indiscernible from the market rate units. That's not what is happening and it is not what
the City should be allowing.
Housing Element Policy 4.2. States- Include both market-rate and affordable units in apartment and residential
condominium projects and intermix the types of units. Affordable units should be comparable in size, appearance and
basic quality to market-rate units.
Housing Element Policy 4.6. States --Consider amending the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Affordable
Housing Incentives to require that affordable units in a development be of similar number of bedrooms, character and
basic quality as the nonrestricted units in locations that avoid segregation of such units.
Housing Element Policy 4.6 was added to try and further explain what seemed clear enough in Housing Element Policy
4.2 that the affordable units should be similar to the rest of the market rate units. So if you have a project that is 1 or more
bedrooms the affordable units should be of the same type. So stop approving projects that are satisfying the affordable
incentives with Studio units when there are no other market rate Studio units. Studio units were intended to be affordable
by design. Counting the studio units as fulfilling the developers obligation to create affordable units is illogical.
Lastly, I completely agree with Mr. Schmidt's letter.
Sincerely,
Brett Cross
San Luis Obispo
On Wednesday, May 8, 2019, 03:41:20 PM PDT, Richard Schmidt <slobuild@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Staff Bell and Codron should be ashamed to maintain these two-door/two-code-compliant-escape-window partitioned
"bedrooms" are one, not two bedrooms.
Such an argument defies both common sense and common honesty. It also defies the facts.
You may recall this issue came up in connection with the 22 Chorro project, and the 71 Palomar project, and staff
engaged in similar mumbo-jumbo, and the projects were permitted as 2 bedroom count for Chorro (and 2 and 3 for
Palomar).
1
Well, here's how the Chorro units are being advertsed:
https://www.apartments.com/the-academy-chorro-san-luis-obispo-ca/nmnpsnq/
You got it -- they're now 4 bedroom units. Whoda thunk it?
2
The Palomar units are being advertised as 4 and 6 bedrooms, and the studios, claimed to be "affordable housing" in
order to get exceptions, are advertised at $1950 per unit! (Which if true suggests the affordable housing ruse was a staff-
tolerated scam on the public.)
https://www.apartments.com/the-academy-palomar-san-luis-obispo-ca/dxcjd3j/
The public is not stupid, and the public's fed up with staff's dishonesty, and with its being rubber stamped by "decision
makers."
It is incumbent that your commission be honest, call these units the 4 bedrooms they are, and apply our municipal
development codes and standards accordingly.
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt
(8 year veteran of Planning Commission from the days we had an honest staff to guide us towards making sound
decisions)
3